Your ONE source is "John Gordon, Keen interest in History". Heck, I have a keen interest in history, why am I not a source?

You wrote that you had "difficulty imagining " it. You didn't write that you had actually researched it.

Further, "high level of education" is relative to the education of the rest of the world, which as I said, is hard to imagine being on par with today.

The statement was about Germany in the 1930s, not now.

Germany back then was much like America today: the Jews are smart and the uneducated Christians protested their immorality. Hitler appealed to the stupid Christians to persecute the immoral Jews.

Some sweeping generalities.

So it's better to be stupid than smart?

Sometimes.

The most intelligent people are often the most likely to fall for a scam. 60 Minutes' Morley Safer talks to con experts and their victims about the slippery science of gullibility.

If there is indeed a sucker born every minute, there are at least three con artists born every 30 seconds destined to take him for a ride. We are going through an epidemic of Pigeon Fever—"Ponzimonium," one government regulator calls it, variations on the scam initiated by Charles Ponzi almost a century ago.

Of course, Bernard Madoff makes Mr. Ponzi look like a nickel-and-dime grifter. Even the mini-Madoffs, like Marc Dreier, were dealing and stealing in the hundreds of millions. The Texas financier Allen Stanford stands accused of a mere $7 billion racket. The FBI says that since the Haiti earthquake they’ve uncovered 170 “Help Haiti” charity scams.

Think pigeons are a great investment? The folks in this 60 Minutes segment sure did.

All of which begs the question: Why are we so gullible? I asked that question of Ricky Jay, that master of sleight of hand and student of cons and con men through the ages. For one thing, he says, the smarter we are, or the smarter we think we are, the easier we are taken. "For me, the ideal audience would be Nobel Prize winners… their egos tell them they can't be fooled,” he says. “No one is easier to fool."

Your ONE source is "John Gordon, Keen interest in History". Heck, I have a keen interest in history, why am I not a source?

You wrote that you had "difficulty imagining " it. You didn't write that you had actually researched it.

You appealed to authority, not actual research. I am as authoritative as anyone else having a keen interest in history.

Further, "high level of education" is relative to the education of the rest of the world, which as I said, is hard to imagine being on par with today.

The statement was about Germany in the 1930s, not now.

Right, and they were stupid, though less stupid than some other places, but still stupid.

Germany back then was much like America today: the Jews are smart and the uneducated Christians protested their immorality. Hitler appealed to the stupid Christians to persecute the immoral Jews.

Some sweeping generalities.

But true nonetheless.

So it's better to be stupid than smart?

Sometimes.

The most intelligent people are often the most likely to fall for a scam. 60 Minutes' Morley Safer talks to con experts and their victims about the slippery science of gullibility.

If there is indeed a sucker born every minute, there are at least three con artists born every 30 seconds destined to take him for a ride. We are going through an epidemic of Pigeon Fever—"Ponzimonium," one government regulator calls it, variations on the scam initiated by Charles Ponzi almost a century ago.

Of course, Bernard Madoff makes Mr. Ponzi look like a nickel-and-dime grifter. Even the mini-Madoffs, like Marc Dreier, were dealing and stealing in the hundreds of millions. The Texas financier Allen Stanford stands accused of a mere $7 billion racket. The FBI says that since the Haiti earthquake they’ve uncovered 170 “Help Haiti” charity scams.

Think pigeons are a great investment? The folks in this 60 Minutes segment sure did.

I've been writing about the pitfalls of intelligence for a couple years now, and really all you can fallback on is the intelligent person's inability to jibe with society. And my retort to that is "Being well-adjusted to a sick society is no measure of health". But falling for scams is actually an instance of stupidity, not intelligence.

All of which begs the question: Why are we so gullible? I asked that question of Ricky Jay, that master of sleight of hand and student of cons and con men through the ages. For one thing, he says, the smarter we are, or the smarter we think we are, the easier we are taken. "For me, the ideal audience would be Nobel Prize winners… their egos tell them they can't be fooled,” he says. “No one is easier to fool."https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-smart-people-are-dumb

That is baloney. I fall for tricks by my friends because I trust them, not because of my ego.

I cut some trees down except for stumps sticking up about 5 ft. A friend said he wanted to put peanut butter on top of one to make the deer stretch out. So I said, "Which one do you want me to save in case I decide to cut them down?" He said, "I'm just fucking with you man LOL!" Yeah, I get fooled easy because I take people at their words. But those guys are programmed not to trust:

journal.pone.0052970.g001.jpg (71.54 KiB) Viewed 4156 times

Amygdala = fear

But I've learned. When discussing whether it was appropriate to taser an 87 yr old woman instead of simply walking up and taking the knife from her, he said "Look into my eyes.... I'd shoot the hell outta her!" I said, "You're full of shit! I don't believe that for a second!"

Now I know he's going to be fucking with me all the time and to be on the lookout. Before, I innocently trusted him. It has nothing to do with ego and actually, it's that magician you quoted who is looking for a way to bolster himself by cutting smart people down: that's the ego!

If there is one way in which dummies have advantages, it's finding simple solutions since smart people generally first seek complex answers to complex problems, such as magic tricks; they over-complicate it.

Ego is associated with dummies. Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.

Smart people can learn. Dummies cannot because they already know everything (ego).

You appealed to authority, not actual research. I am as authoritative as anyone else having a keen interest in history.

If you google it, then you get dozens of people writing the same stuff. He had a short post which covered the main points, so I used it.

You have some odd ideas about historical events, which are not confirmed by my research. Therefore, I don't consider you to be an authority.

Right, and they were stupid, though less stupid than some other places, but still stupid.

Given your binary ideas about smart and stupid, I'm not surprised by this at all.

I've been writing about the pitfalls of intelligence for a couple years now, and really all you can fallback on is the intelligent person's inability to jibe with society. And my retort to that is "Being well-adjusted to a sick society is no measure of health". But falling for scams is actually an instance of stupidity, not intelligence.

Sure. You seem to be saying that as soon as an intelligent person makes a mistake, then he is no longer intelligent. That sets an impossible standard. Everybody makes mistakes.

Ego is associated with dummies. Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.

Smart people can learn. Dummies cannot because they already know everything (ego).

You already had a similar discussion with KT and I don't want to just repeat what he wrote.

You appealed to authority, not actual research. I am as authoritative as anyone else having a keen interest in history.

If you google it, then you get dozens of people writing the same stuff. He had a short post which covered the main points, so I used it.

Appeal to popularity.

I have not seen evidence that the non-jewish, christian, regular joes in germany were, by any standard of today, even low ones, could be considered educated. And if you wish to convince me, you have a lot of work ahead of you, which doesn't include posting opinions, even 1000s of them, of people who are merely interested in history. Show me something from someone with accreditation from a respected university at least. And then show me that the standard of education then was on par with the standard of today.

The question was about how to ensure freedom from potential tyrannical rule and my proposal was to educate the population. Your counterpoint was that the german citizens were smart, yet fooled. I have not seen sufficient evidence to validate your counterpoint. Not least of all, people could not have studied the history of the Nazi regime before it happened, but today such knowledge is common. We have 100 years of empirical evidence to draw upon today in addition to the information they had. That wasn't the case in the past, among technological challenges for the conveyance of information that existed in that time which draws into question just how educated regular people could have possibly been. And if the education level of today's christians are any guide, then not much could be said of the education of the same sorts a century ago.

You have some odd ideas about historical events, which are not confirmed by my research. Therefore, I don't consider you to be an authority.

Why not? Your research is based on opinions of anyone who claims to be a history buff.

Right, and they were stupid, though less stupid than some other places, but still stupid.

Given your binary ideas about smart and stupid, I'm not surprised by this at all.

I can't tell if that's a statement about you or a statement about me.

I've been writing about the pitfalls of intelligence for a couple years now, and really all you can fallback on is the intelligent person's inability to jibe with society. And my retort to that is "Being well-adjusted to a sick society is no measure of health". But falling for scams is actually an instance of stupidity, not intelligence.

Sure. You seem to be saying that as soon as an intelligent person makes a mistake, then he is no longer intelligent. That sets an impossible standard. Everybody makes mistakes.

Well, would you categorize a mistake as a smart decision? You're saying smart people generally have a proclivity for making mistakes that stupid people generally do not make, and if such is the case, then the smart people you're referencing obviously are not smart, but have some sort of neurological handicap.

Forget smart and stupid and just tell me what is lost upon going to college and learning? Why do people get dumber after they get smarter? This is what you're alluding to right? That education makes people so stupid that they fall for bullshit? Alright, propose a mechanism to explain the correlation you think you've noticed.

I have not seen evidence that the non-jewish, christian, regular joes in germany were, by any standard of today, even low ones, could be considered educated.

Their system of schools is well documented. Their universities produced a number of important philosophers, scientists, playwrights, composers and engineers. They valued education. It all points to high level of education.

And if you wish to convince me, you have a lot of work ahead of you, which doesn't include posting opinions, even 1000s of them, of people who are merely interested in history.

I'm not here to lead you into the promised land of knowledge. It doesn't matter to me what you believe about it.

Show me something from someone with accreditation from a respected university at least.

Ironically, you just wanted me to accept you as an authority. What are your credentials?

The question was about how to ensure freedom from potential tyrannical rule and my proposal was to educate the population. Your counterpoint was that the german citizens were smart, yet fooled. I have not seen sufficient evidence to validate your counterpoint. Not least of all, people could not have studied the history of the Nazi regime before it happened, but today such knowledge is common. We have 100 years of empirical evidence to draw upon today in addition to the information they had. That wasn't the case in the past, among technological challenges for the conveyance of information that existed in that time which draws into question just how educated regular people could have possibly been. And if the education level of today's christians are any guide, then not much could be said of the education of the same sorts a century ago.

Your point was that everyone was stupid until ... When? 10 years ago?

Why not? Your research is based on opinions of anyone who claims to be a history buff.

Now you know how much research I have done?

Well, would you categorize a mistake as a smart decision? You're saying smart people generally have a proclivity for making mistakes that stupid people generally do not make, and if such is the case, then the smart people you're referencing obviously are not smart, but have some sort of neurological handicap.

I understand your position : A smart person who makes a mistake is not a smart person.

Pretty much means that there are no smart people in existence.

Forget smart and stupid and just tell me what is lost upon going to college and learning? Why do people get dumber after they get smarter? This is what you're alluding to right? That education makes people so stupid that they fall for bullshit? Alright, propose a mechanism to explain the correlation you think you've noticed.

I have not seen evidence that the non-jewish, christian, regular joes in germany were, by any standard of today, even low ones, could be considered educated.

Their system of schools is well documented.

If it's documented so well, it would be no trouble for you to display the documentation.

Their universities produced a number of important philosophers, scientists, playwrights, composers and engineers.

Yes and they were ostracized, demonized, and finally driven to other countries. I said that earlier. How do you think the US got Einstein?

Look at the polarization of the US now. It's really the ignorant vs the academics. I've gone to great length in trying to illustrate this. Look at Pedro viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194702#p2720668

This is real shit! People think smart people are stupid. What people most love about Trump is he is as dumb as they are.

They valued education. It all points to high level of education.

Philosophers, scientists, playwrights, composers (aka jews) and engineers (slavs) are not everyday joes. Show me evidence that these people had a decent education such that they could be somewhat qualified to make a political decision:

3292007.c8bafa15.640.jpg (92.52 KiB) Viewed 4045 times

And if you wish to convince me, you have a lot of work ahead of you, which doesn't include posting opinions, even 1000s of them, of people who are merely interested in history.

I'm not here to lead you into the promised land of knowledge. It doesn't matter to me what you believe about it.

Then why do you keep replying? You're obviously trying to accomplish something.

Show me something from someone with accreditation from a respected university at least.

Ironically, you just wanted me to accept you as an authority. What are your credentials?

The same as John Gordon: a keen interest in history. If that's acceptable for John to be an authority, then it's acceptable for me. Your standards are not high.

The question was about how to ensure freedom from potential tyrannical rule and my proposal was to educate the population. Your counterpoint was that the german citizens were smart, yet fooled. I have not seen sufficient evidence to validate your counterpoint. Not least of all, people could not have studied the history of the Nazi regime before it happened, but today such knowledge is common. We have 100 years of empirical evidence to draw upon today in addition to the information they had. That wasn't the case in the past, among technological challenges for the conveyance of information that existed in that time which draws into question just how educated regular people could have possibly been. And if the education level of today's christians are any guide, then not much could be said of the education of the same sorts a century ago.

Your point was that everyone was stupid until ... When? 10 years ago?

And your point is everyone was smart since when? 100,000 years ago? When did smartness really take off?

Why not? Your research is based on opinions of anyone who claims to be a history buff.

Now you know how much research I have done?

I know what you exhibited. You claim a person with keen interest in history is a good source. And then you back that up with an appeal to popularity. Hopefully you don't practice the rest of your research in similar fashion.

Well, would you categorize a mistake as a smart decision? You're saying smart people generally have a proclivity for making mistakes that stupid people generally do not make, and if such is the case, then the smart people you're referencing obviously are not smart, but have some sort of neurological handicap.

I understand your position : A smart person who makes a mistake is not a smart person.

No, not a single person. You said smart people are prone to falling for scams. People = plural = groups. So, groups of people who make the same mistake obviously are not smart. Either you labeled the group wrong or you populated it with the wrong people. It's like saying groups of strong people can't lift the weight groups of weak people can.

I said smart people tend to over-complicate problems. That isn't a mistake or a deficiency, but a preference to embrace challenges which has the side-effect of not immediately noticing simpler solutions.

I said smart people don't mesh well in society. That isn't a mistake of deficiency except to the extent that they're deficient in patience for dealing with the dumb herd.

You are making the claim that smart people (groups of) are somehow stupid and that there is virtue in not being smart, like not falling for scams. I said it has nothing to do with intelligence, but being trusting, which is an artifact of not over-using one's amygdala by being raised in the impoverishment of a capitalist society.

People with over-expressed amygdalas do not trust easily while those who are coddled don't know the fear.

The nurtured coddled intellectual trusts easy (and that trust is easy to exploit).The impoverished average joe slaving through life trusts no one.

It isn't a matter of intelligence or ego.

But it is a matter of ego that the dummy remains dumb. The potential is there, but there's a brick wall preventing learning. Maybe lack of trust (skepticism of smart people) plays into it as well, but mostly it's ego.

Forget smart and stupid and just tell me what is lost upon going to college and learning? Why do people get dumber after they get smarter? This is what you're alluding to right? That education makes people so stupid that they fall for bullshit? Alright, propose a mechanism to explain the correlation you think you've noticed.

KT covered this with you already.

I conceded that capitalists may want government to defend them, but I don't remember conceding the virtues of ignorance. The only thing I remember is he said academics have egos, but I object to that because if smart people have ego problems, then how did they get smart in the first place?

Here's the democracy index in relation to private consumption as % of GDP:

democracy.jpg (110.74 KiB) Viewed 3982 times

There's a trend in the beginning, but runs out of gas starting about Kenya.

I get more out of this one:

democracy2.jpg (117.14 KiB) Viewed 3982 times

It seems to me there is government spending when the people take control of the government, democratically, and issue themselves money; and there is government spending when a dictator or king issues money to shut the people up, but doesn't necessarily address human rights. And then there's the situation where the people neither have control nor money.

Now consider this: Venezuela has the largest oil reserve and Saudi Arabia has the 2nd largest. Both have free money pouring from the ground. Neither has democracy. Saudi Arabia has 8th largest government spending and Venezuela has the absolute least. Saudi Arabia ranks 39th on the Human Development Index while Venezuela ranks 78th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ment_Index

Saudi Arabia wouldn't be so bad if not for that horrible religion, which is the main drag on human development, but what's Venezuela's problem? Lack of democracy or lack of benevolent dictatorship?

What we call the military budget is the technique by which taxpayers pay the costs of high-tech industry. So that's how you pay off IBM and, you know, electronics industry and aeronautics. Our biggest exports is aircraft, well that's publicly funded. And in fact virtually every functional part of the economy is publicly funded. Of course, everyone knows capitalism is completely unworkable, we try to impose it on 3rd world countries to destroy them, but we don't have capitalism. [Audience laughs] And never have. The military budget is one of the main techniques by which the state intervenes in the economy to funnel money from the taxpayer to the wealthy.